A little over a week ago, the Chronicle Editorial LiveJournalists blasted Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jefferson Wallace for pushing through a change in the official workflow that has allegedly contributed to a backlog of cases.
Today, Wallace’s predecessor writes that the Editorial LiveJournalists got it wrong (the shock!):
Ordinarily, I don’t question favorable references to me in the press, such as that contained in the Jan. 31 editorial, “Backlog.” But the intimation that my successor as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, Wallace Jefferson, has adopted new procedures that have slowed the court’s work is so wrong that I feel compelled to set the record straight.
The court’s practice of conferencing about cases on a monthly, rather than a weekly, basis originated with me, not Chief Justice Jefferson. In 1993, concerned about our court’s backlog under the then-existing weekly calendar, I surveyed judicial procedures nationwide. I found that no other state conferences every week, nor does the U.S. Supreme Court. I convinced the Texas Supreme Court to adopt a practice similar to the other states, and the results were quite beneficial. Our backlog at the end of each term was cut from an average of more than 44 cases during the previous five years to less than 18 cases during the next six.
In 1999, however, the court decided, over my objection, to return to a weekly conference schedule. As I feared, the backlog slowly accumulated over the next few years. In 2004, just before I left the court, the justices adopted my motion to reinstate the monthly schedule. If that decision was wrong, you should blame me, not Jefferson.
Another criticism the editorial leveled at the court’s procedures is also wrong, in my opinion. The random assignment of majority opinions does not cause any significant delay. If the assigned justice is not in the majority, the case is simply reassigned, often within days. Random assignments assure that each justice has an equal chance to author all types of cases, thus preventing the danger of various justices holding forth as “specialists” in particular areas of the law. The court has used this system for at least 60 years, perhaps longer.
The common phrase that “justice delayed is justice denied” is often true. The Texas Supreme Court produces scholarly and widely respected opinions, but it has for many years been too slow in its work. The court can surely benefit from public discussion about its procedures, but only if the public has accurate information about what it is now doing and why.
THOMAS R. PHILLIPS
retired chief justice, Supreme Court of Texas, Austin
That was certainly a thorough correction!
